Sexual liberation: Whose sexuality is liberated, men's or women's?

Sexual liberation means more sex outside marriage (pre-marital, extramarital), particularly for women. Today, most young women are sexually active outside marriage. Their grandmothers mostly reserved intercourse until after marriage. Such generational differences are referred to as the "sexual revolution," or "women's liberation" because women's behavior changed more than that of men. Women's liberation often strikes me as semantically troubling, implying that females are finally getting what they have long wanted. Who have been more sexually liberated men or women?

The evolutionary backgroundGender differences in sexual motivation are accepted among biologists who recognize that females are more discriminating in the choice of a mate because they invest more in the offspring from the outset because the egg is always much larger than the sperm. Among mammals, females also bear the huge energy costs of gestation and lactation. For these reasons, females are considered a resource over which males must compete. Compete they do.

Men's eagerness to mate is highlighted by the sex industries of pornography and prostitution that cater principally to males. In every country studied, men also want more partners in uncommitted relationships although a minority of women are more interested in casual sex than the average man.

Whereas men are generally more interested in casual sex, women look for greater emotional commitment in a relationship. This sensibility is reflected in romance novels read mainly by women and it would have helped our female ancestors to select faithful partners who stayed around to help them raise children.

The historical backgroundAs early as 1870, contraceptives (rubber condoms) were widely used in the U.S. and Europe (1). Before then, extramarital sexuality carried a huge risk of unwanted pregnancy and consequent abandonment. Most women were sexually active only after marriage, keeping the single parenthood ratio to below 5 percent over many centuries of English parish records.

A similar picture applied in the U.S. until the sexual revolution of the 1960s when many young women began having sex before marriage. Sex researchers also document increased interest in sexual pleasure, variety of sexual acts, time devoted to making love, number of sex manuals purchased, and so forth.

What caused the sexual revolution?Many factors may have been implicated, such as improved contraception (the pill which gave women more control), but effective condoms had been widely used for a century. Marriage prospects and careers were the key. Women's marriage prospects worsened steadily throughout the sixties and there were only 80 men of marriageable age for every 100 women (2) thanks to an echo effect of the baby boom a generation earlier. Women also postponed marriage as they developed careers.

The net result was a large and increasing population of women who were sexually active outside marriage. Facing stiffer competition for men, women upped the ante by offering increased levels of sexual intimacy outside marriage.

In addition to complying with the masculine desire for sex without strings, women today adopt a more masculine sensibility regarding issues of number of sexual partners, sexual variety, and sexual satisfaction.

Which gender is more pleased by those circumstances? Whose evolved psychological needs are being catered to? From an evolutionary perspective, the so-called sexual liberation of women looks more like sexual liberation for men. i.e., men get more sex and more sexual variety without making an emotional commitment.

Because they are over supplied, and less in demand, women enter into the spirit of men's penchant for recreational sex. This psychology is at an extreme on U.S. college campuses where there are only about 75 men per hundred women and hooking up (some level of physical intimacy that lasts for just one night) has largely replaced dating (3). As women's bargaining power declines, they must behave more like men if they wish to remain active in the romantic sphere. Women certainly gain in sexual freedom compared to their grandmothers but they lose out in emotional commitment.

I don't know what has made women in general adopt the attitude that it's somehow liberating for them to engage in hooking up and such. But I am nearly 100% certain that they're kidding themselves. You can't fool your own biology, and evolution is much slower than the changes we've seen in the last 50 years or so. Speaking as someone who was married for a decade and then reentered the dating scene in the early 2000s, I can confirm that it is indeed a promiscuous woman's world out there. Men who don't get satisfaction on date #1, or at most, date #2, won't call again. The men actually seem to believe that successful relationships are supposed to begin with a hookup.

I am glad that women have progressed from baby makers and have the chance to experience multiple partners if they so desire, but the pressure to be promiscious is not a liberating force. Sex and the City does an excellent job of painting the four women as sexually liberated but in reality thier lives are full of disappointment and objectification. Not to mention the number of partners they have would certainly lead to STD transmission. You don't sleep with 100s of men ( as Samanthas character) and walk away with a clean bill of health, emotional or physical.

I would rather not get anything through sex. But if I were to, I would rather get it directly from the source than having my partner bringing it home...

Every time you go to bed with a man, the algorithm is that you are getting in bed with his previous partners dear.... at least with casual sex you are more conscious of the dangers and use protection more so than you do in a steady relationship...I am at an age where I trust nobody including myself...

The point is neither men nor women are happy with the liberation scene...believe me. Like Samantha, they hide behind their void and its a measure of self-preservation not to get involved so as not to be disappointment....

GenXer husband married to socially liberal, sexually conservative wife. We are each other's firsts and neither have been with anyone else. Obviously we're not part of the new wave crowd of sexual liberation. I'm so bored and tired of doing all the work in bed I want to poke my eyes out. After being with someone for a couple decades even the stupid lovey dovey relationship fades and marriage is more like a very close friendship with someone that more often annoys you but you happen to occasionally have sex with. I'm not saying that because it's just me and it's our relationship. Look into the dead cow eyes of any married man over the age of 40 and tell me the guy looks happy and fulfilled. Point is, if you think the grass on the other side of the fence is greener, it ain't honey. Long term relationships suck. They take work and even then don't always work well. But if you and everyone else wants to vacillate back and forth about what's important in relationships, be my guest.

While women may be more active outside marriage they also are still very selective when choosing a partner. In talking to friends of both sexes i get the perception that woman on average have a lot more partners. Most men have few partners and a few have literally thousands.

Just because humans have a tendency to behave in a certain way does not mean that tendency will, or should, determine their behavior. An example is our tendency to aggression, which is at least as widely accepted to exist as women’s tendency to be selective (an hypothesis, not a firmly established theory). Even though we have an inborn tendency to aggressive behavior, the murder rates in different societies vary greatly. Humans are learning animals. Dr. Barber points out that women’s sexual behavior has changed because of factors such as marriage and career choices. He underestimates the effect of the oral contraceptive because, unlike condoms, it is under the control of the woman. How much any tendency influences behavior depends on how strong the tendency is. I suspect that for most women their tendency toward selectivity is not very strong. After all, there are huge numbers of female prostitutes even though it is illegal and disreputable, so it does not take a lot of money to get many women to overcome any tendency to selectivity they may have.

Prostitutes are workers, just like any other worker in any other business. A female prostitute (or male for that matter) doesn't do what she does because she lacks selectivity for a mate. I've yet to see that work outside of Pretty Woman. She's simply making money the way she has chosen to, it's not considered romantic, or a hookup, or one night stand or booty call. Just work. Don't assume that prostitution somehow describes the whole female population as lacking selectivity.

Evolutionary biologists have observed that males are less selective, and females more selective for animal species. However, it's not a safe inference to assume that the same selectivity is present in humans.

Dumb humans will probably behave like animals. But smart humans are "reasoning animals," so it's more likely that they'll try to use cooperative or competitive game theory to their advantage. It's not clear whether this works to the advantage of women or men, or whether it's context-dependent, but I'd certainly expect the rules of the game to change among the smart fraction of the population.

I've personally noticed that smart people tend to either be "too smart" and shoot themselves in the foot by analysis paralysis, or they're the successful smart personality type who avoid the "analysis paralysis" and get what they want.

In any case, it's not clear that the solution for women or men should involve sleeping around. For example, if you're a man, and you look at the problem of sleeping with women rationally, and purely try to maximize hedonism, then probably what you want is a single long-term mate, that you can have lots of sex with. If you look at the problem in terms of the desires of your genes to reproduce, then you probably want to sleep with lots of poor women on welfare, and poke holes in your condoms.

But if you want the best life for yourself and your mate, then you probably want to get an advanced degree, and look for someone else with similar high standards. If you accept having a high standard of life as your rational goal, then regardless of whether you're a woman or man, it's probably safer to delay mating altogether, since the desires of your genes are antagonistic to your personal goals. That peoples' genes are antagonistic to their personal goals I think is a good explanation for childless women and men in the U.S. It's not that these women are being more selective for breeding, and the men are being less selective for breeding, as the "dumb animal" hypothesis would predict, but rather that both groups of people are intentionally selecting for no breeding!

Many of the readers of this blog are probably in the population who select against having children, by selecting for a strong career. This is why I've always found evolutionary psychology to be a rather misleading subject, because ironically, it explains how the animalistic 90% of people "work", to the mystified intelligent 10% of people who just don't get it. The reason I find evolutionary psychology to be misleading is because it usually posits the behavior of the animalistic 90% as a model for how the other 10% work, even though they use completely different mechanisms of behavior (for example, the 10% are usually intentionally basing their lives on rational models from economics, which predict totally different behavior than if you try to maximize your reproductive rate). So the 10% of smart people who are interested in abstract subjects learn how dumb people work from evolutionary psychologists, and then they have this false enlightenment that this is how they themselves work -- a sort of false self knowledge.

Despite the fine work of western philosophers, I disagree that humans are logical. Most decisions are emotional, based on underlying preferences, desires and dislikes that are so common and overwhelming the rational mind would never think to give them the time of day.

Logical people wouldn't gamble, cheat on their spouses, or smoke... but a lot of people do.

The selectivity of humans is a trait amplified by rationality not obscured by it. A rational man will tend to be more selective than his irrational peers by seeking mates of similar quality to him in terms of intelligence, aspirations, etc.

The same applies for women, selectivity refers to seeking the highest quality mate possible. That in itself if a very cerebral process, even if a lot of it is motivated with baser instinct. Women seek mates who are as attractive (which is a matter of taste, and transcends simply physical attractiveness), smart, dominant and emotionally available as possible. This is selectivity at work, sometimes it occurs on a very rational level.

I think you misinterpret the working meaning of selective here because in your arguement you effectively detail what is, in effect, your idea of selection should be (which you refer to as "cooperative or competative game theory"), and you imply that this is distinct from what the term 'selection' is referring to.

Being selective does not simply mean using instinct to guide your selection process. It means having standards for who your sexual mate will be. For modern humans, that may very well involve cooperative or competative gameplay (although I suggest simply asking her out).

And for the record, today's woman is still very highly selective. Just because some girl fucks a lot doesn't mean she'll fuck just anyone!

Speaking as a 27 year old guy, though not for all of them I'm sure, I'd say this article is pretty spot on and thank goodness for that too! I do not believe 'sexual hang-ups' is the number one deal breaker for the consideration of any type of relationship with a woman....but it is probably the third.

Speaking as a 27 year old guy, though not for all of them I'm sure, I'd say this article is pretty spot on and thank goodness for that too! I do not believe 'sexual hang-ups' is the number one deal breaker for the consideration of any type of relationship with a woman....but it is probably the third.

Maybe it's just me, as a woman, but I disagree with what I understand the purpose of this article to be (which is somewhat vague at times). The term "Women's Liberation Movement" partially refers to the positive change in the attitude of society at large towards female sexuality, among other things; before 1950-1960, women were not believed to be capable of having orgasms on their own, that people (women especially) should not masturbate, and that women do not and should not consciously want sex, especially outside of marriage or for the purpose of feeling pleasure. However, after the sexual revolution of the 1960s, people, especially women, started to embrace several things: 1) sex is healthy and good, 2) Women can and do want sex as much as men do, and 3) it's OK for them to do so.

Also, has everyone forgotten all the other things that happened during the sexual revolution era of the 1960s? Hippies for one, who were all doing LSD and ecstasy and listening to alternative music, and were actively rebelling against the established norms of society because they realized that those norms didn't bring happiness for everyone. Also, that was right after Alfred Kinsey released the bulk of his research findings. I imagine the impact of these factors, in conjunction with the rise in popularity of oral contraception, contributed greatly to the start of the sexual revolution.

This is old news. As far I'm concerned, it's a fact that women and men crave sex about an equal amount, and that men have just as high a capacity for committed romantic relationships as women do. I was honestly bored and somewhat irritated by this article.

If men were sexually liberated all along and women were not, who were men having sex with outside marriage? Is it possible women have simply been liberated to talk openly about subjects their grandmothers considered taboo? I think so.

Having grown up in the 50's I experienced much guilt over sex before marriage. When divorced about 20 years later, I decided to find out who I was in the new era. I came to the same place, for different reasons. I no longer felt guilty, but sex without emotional commitment was just boring. Yes, men got "liberated" if it means as much sex as they want. True liberation for both sexes, and my second husband concurs, is, sex with emotional commitment.

Having grown up in the 50's I experienced much guilt over sex before marriage. When divorced about 20 years later, I decided to find out who I was in the new era. I came to the same place, for different reasons. I no longer felt guilty, but sex without emotional commitment was just boring. Yes, men got "liberated" if it means as much sex as they want. True liberation for both sexes, and my second husband concurs, is, sex with emotional commitment.

It's a really weird issue. I wish it was true that women were accepted for their promiscuity these days, but they're not. While having a few intimate relationships outside marriage is accepted, I've seen no signs of acceptance of women who sleep around, by men or women. I've seen the IDEA embraced, praised, ect, but the individual who does it is always reviled.

There is a lot of evidence that women suppress each other's sexuality, even from those who do not believe in evolutionary psychology (see the work of Baumeister & Twenge).

Although Barber doesn't speak to it in his article, a wide range of evidence points to women as the ones controlling the sexual suppression of other women. Men have much more liberal attitudes toward prostitution and pornography, whereas women are more offended by it and viscerally opposed (not to suggest that every individual feels this way, of course). Women are far more likely to use terms such as "slut" or "whore" to harm another woman's sexual reputation. Men don't get to be sure of the paternity of their children, so when the time comes to settle down, most men strongly dislike a previously promiscuous spouse. Women can use that to their advantage without even realizing it.

As a woman myself, I find the idea that we suppress each other's sexuality to be more true to my own experience, and paradoxically to be more empowering than the age-old idea that we are controlled by men. Men would not have us be prudes if they were the ones in control! With the way things are now, it is more advantageous to men compared to women. That does not negate the fringe benefits of greater sexual pleasure, either. As Barber points out: sexual liberation as a trade for emotional commitment does not play to women's advantages.

And as one final point: look at the rates of single motherhood. I know a lot of fantastic single moms, but you can't underestimate how hard that is on both mother and children. This is not in our best interests.

There's a place for comparing the actions of people today with people 50 years ago, but what's the comparison to people 500 or 1500 years ago, or throughout most of human history.

The societies of the last couple hundred years have been pretty unusual as things go - I think we need to look outside of them to really determine the effects of those societies on natural human behavior.

Has it been proved that women seek emotional relationships more frequently due to biology, or could that not itself be the result of passing down narratives (in the form of anything from culture to romance novels) that teach women to seek emotional relationships? Desire and disgust are taught. It seems that these novels are providing instruction and reinforcement of those social narratives rather than reflecting an instinct. That is to say, if children weren't taught to seek certain traits in certain mates by their society, I doubt that they would naturally seek that sort of relationship (thus produce that kind of fantasy).

By that logic, all humans must also have long, flowing hair and trim, athletic builds (traits that would be different in other societies)--because romance novels reflect these manifestations of biological tendencies, too.

"...i.e., men get more sex and more sexual variety without making an emotional commitment..."

definitely can relate to this article. lol. I can't be the first straight man to say that I just end up like, "awesome, women who like sex! ...even more awesome, women who make it really difficult to figure out whether they actually like sex or it's just me!!" (at which point the next step would be to find out... haha.)

If you look at it that way, it was something men always, probably, secretly wanted-- women just made it easier for them, by outright asking for "sexual liberation."

I believe it was on this website there's a history of marriage, which indicates that after the Victorian era, when women's sexuality was basically put into sociological lockdown, married men started looking for prostitutes rather than their wives for sex? (which I'm sure helped proliferate a prostitution industry or two as well...)

To fight for sexual liberation was maybe almost...overly optimistic? As it seems to have been founded on an (unspoken) presumption that men are equally as interested in long-term romance as women. Or at least the women fighting it...to idealize one is to idealize the other, I'd say those who fight/fought hardest are the ones who idealized long-term relationships equally as well. (Ironically, the "romanticizing" or idealism, or whatever, in this aspect is usually a feminine stereotype...)

Anyway, I guess this is what happens when women are the ones not asking for directional guidance.. but now we know there's more equality with that behavior as well.. ;-)

Right. So now that we have proved that women are their own worst enemies (how stupid of them to agitate for what men have always wanted), let's all get together, on the beach, as the sun sets, and worship The Mighty Cock that always wins, shall we?

Sexual liberation is NOT more sex, it means being in control of what sex means to you. Many women I know have more sex and are not more satisfied then their grandmothers were since we are still controlled in terms of our desires and fantasies. Most male partners aren't willing to cater to what their women truly seek and expect us to only cater to their needs instead. So technically, the real liberation is yet to occur... People will only be free when they can express themselves honestly, until then, let your Freudian psychology books collect dust.

And that's why lesbians and bisexual women are more sexually-liberated than most if not all heterosexual women. Female partners are more willing to cater to their partners' needs and satisfy them, but some women are more willing to ask for what they desire in the bedroom than other women.

Guys are brought up to think that only their orgasms matter in the bedroom, and they knock lesbians because their masculine egos are hurt, most likely. They say things like, "They're probably afraid of dicks.", or, "You've just never had a good dick in you yet, huh?"

FitFlop 'Rokkit' ab muscles flip flops for the purpose of WomenI haven't heard of the law suits which often FitFlop certainly having a while you're workout wearing them, merely i recognize oftentimes very trendy, And in this case, mega awesome in addition.